Francis Said:

Believing in the name of Science?

We Answered:

You point is nicely put.

It is in the nature of people to war. Mea culpa, I have dismissed in disdain religions for the number of wars that seem to propagate as a result, but intellectually, I do know better.

Case in point, Attila and his hordes of Hun did not war because of religion, but quit honestly, I can't think of too many others that don't have religion, in some way, as the founding.

But yes, you are quite correct. If there was no religion, a call to war would have other reasons. Wars are often because one person wants what another one has -- their treasures. The US went to war with the Middle East twice. What was our fear both times? Religious fanatics. The truth be told, we went to war for their oil, and the spoils of war.

Perhaps a holy war more justifies the raping and pillaging; the Crusades, as an example, where even little children were sent to fight the holy war.

People will have disagreements, border disputes over land, the need for resources (water, husbandry land). So often though, it is filtered through and fired up by religion.

Many people will remember going to Church on Sunday and hearing their pastor praise George Bush and the war (it was justified by the 9/11 attack) and to pray for victory. While it is not wrong, I guess, to pray for the safety of the soldiers, but to pray for a victory? This puts modern religion into fueling the fire, as many people walked out of church believing the God approved of this war and was on our side.

Think of the old Bob Dylan tune.

However, as far as science sparking the turmoil, no, I do think I would lean more toward religion, if I had the choice to choose. The turmoil, however, does spark science.